54: people reading page 1 and the last page of the thread ignoring the 60000 posts in between.

55: people still defending crop sensors, "reach" & equivalencey

(does equivalency mean "need a slightly longer lens"?)

No, it means a 50 1.4 on a ff would require a 35(ish) 0.9(ish) to match on APS-C. Sounds great, around middle focal lengths, FF shines. 10mm APS-C requires about 16mm FF. The price difference is astonishing... But, move to the long end, and the world becomes murder. To see what APS-C sees at 600, on FF it requires a 900mm lens (basically, 500 +2x, 600 + 1.4x and then some...). Then, you need TCs, and getting anything in focus becomes even harder. You get to stop down an extra stop and a half, so that extra stop and a half of IQ dissappears. FF really is a bit of a few trick pony, not an answer all.

And how much will that 'slightly longer' telephoto lens cost you? FF is not the be all and end all. I'm not trying to say crop sensors are better than FF, that would be stupid of me but it gets my back up when people seemingly (with some sense of superiority) look down on crop sensors and their users as being a waste of time. They have their uses- especially for the less well off amateur!

And how much will that 'slightly longer' telephoto lens cost you? FF is not the be all and end all. I'm not trying to say crop sensors are better than FF, that would be stupid of me but it gets my back up when people seemingly (with some sense of superiority) look down on crop sensors and their users as being a waste of time. They have their uses- especially for the less well off amateur!

Or for folk who are well enough off but just don't want to spend lots of money on gear that vastly out performs their needs. I love my photography hobby. I really enjoy my full-time video work. But there is much much more to life and more interesting things to spend money on.

Thankfully it's work money that will buy me a C100. Cropped sensor lump of crap that it is

And how much will that 'slightly longer' telephoto lens cost you? FF is not the be all and end all. I'm not trying to say crop sensors are better than FF, that would be stupid of me but it gets my back up when people seemingly (with some sense of superiority) look down on crop sensors and their users as being a waste of time. They have their uses- especially for the less well off amateur!

I think you'll find they have uses for the less well off / financially astute pro too. Hail the 7DII.

There's one hell of a saving in fast glass if you're on aps-c. The difference in perceived lens speed doesn't outweight the cost advantage in most applications.

There's one hell of a saving in fast glass if you're on aps-c. The difference in perceived lens speed doesn't outweight the cost advantage in most applications.

And the weight advantage in many scenarios.

What is 'perceived lens speed'? If you mean what I think you do, once you factor in the better ISO performance of FF vs. APS-C, the smaller sensor has no advantage there (in fact, it's at 1/3-stop disadvantage, at least). The only practically relevant 'advantage' there is that an f/2.8 lens on APS-C activates the high-precision AF point, whereas an f/4 lens on FF doesn't (except on a couple of previous 1-series bodies).

There's a 'weight advantage' for UWA, but with normal and tele lenses, the 'weight advantage' comes at a substantial IQ penalty, at least if you want to shoot wide open (and stopping down when you're already at f/5.6 with the ISO noise of APS-C isn't something I did very often).